File 3877/1912 Pt 4 ‘Turkey in Asia: oil concessions’ [‎111v] (164/176)

The fact that the British Government have to obtain these rights against a quid
pro quo given to the Turkish Government shows that, up to the present at any rate,
these rights have not been legally vested in the D’Arcy group, and it would seem that
the support of the British Government has been given to the D Arcy group on t} le
ground of expediency and not on the ground of the validity of the rights possessed by
the group and those associated with it.
Mr. Silley desires us to reiterate that the exact position of the mining rights held
by him in Mosul and Bagdad is clearly set out in his letter of the 17th January last to
the Forign Office, which gives all the dates and particulars, and that all the require
ments of the Turkish mining law have been complied with by him.
Mr. Silley only asks the British Government to call upon the Turkish Government
to carry out and execute their own mining laws without undue delay. He asks for no
preferential or special terms, but merely that the mining laws, good or bad, shall be
complied with, and we should mention again that these mining laws were in existence
long before the D’Arcy group began their negotiations. Further, as Mr. Silley is only
asking for the laws to be complied with, if the claims of the D’Arcy group are legal
ones they will not be injured. If, on the other hand, they should prove to be illegal
they are not worth the support of His Majesty’s Government. It is not, we believe,
the policy of the Foreign Office to refuse to call for compliance with the law of the
country in a case of this kind, and least of all to refuse on the ground that such
compliance will damage pretensions which are not founded on legal rights.
Mr. Silley courts the fullest examination of his legal position in order that the
Foreign Office may ascertain whether his position justifies them in calling upon the
Turkish Government to have their mining laws carried out wdthout delay. Naturally,
if it was found that Mr. Silley’s rights were not legal rights the Foreign Office would
refuse its support, but we understood at one or two interviews which we had with you
that there was no question of the rights not being legal, and that the Foreign Office
and His Majesty’s Ambassador at Constantinople had satisfied themselves that
Mr. Silley’s claims, so far as legality went, were perfectly in order.
You will permit us to point out that in other cases the Foreign Office have refused
to support British pretensions in other parts of the world, and those who have applied
to them for assistance have been told that reliance must be placed on the laws of the
country in which the business happens to be, and that no support can be expected for
anything not strictly in accordance with the law and customs of such countries.
In the present case the Foreign Office is supporting not only British pretensions
which are not in accordance with the mining laws of Turkey, but German and Dutch
interests as well.
Mr. Silley informs us that the Turkish authorities say to him, “ Let the British
Ambassador ask us to finish this business in accordance with the law and we
will immediately give orders for the actual permits to be granted. It is the British
Government "who are preventing our carrying out the law by its demands.”
If this is the attitude of the Turkish authorities we would urge that the proper
course is for the I oreign Office to satisfy themselves, if they are not already satisfied,
whether Mr. Silley s prospecting licences and other rights, or the rights claimed by the
Turkish Petroleum Company, are legal or not, and to support whichever party is found
to have the legal claim. If the Foreign Office is prepared to support Mr. Silley with
the l urkish Government with regard to the provinces of Mosul and Bagdad, he would
be lulling to give them tne undertaking they require, to the effect that any company
he forms shall be controlled by British capital, and he would be prepared to come to a
reasonable agreement with the present British group, although he would not include
the Dutch or German interests.
]- n support of His Majesty’s Government would be given to a company
whony British and not an international company half foreign-controlled, as is the case
with the lurkish Petroleum Company.
M hen we discussed this matter with you stress was laid upon The fact that the
iplomatic support of His Majesty’s Government had been given to the D’Arcy group
since UOo, when the alleged promises were made by the two Grand Viziers, and that
m n( ? t the legal formalities which were required to complete
r. i ey s rights were carried out. It can hardly be suggested that British merchants
e ore carrying out any business in Turkey must first go to His Majesty Ambassador
or e oreign Office and enquire whether they are supporting anv other pretensions
m respect o the concessions which such merchants propose to acquire.
i er r. oiiley s rights or those of the D’Arcy group are in accordance with law
and equity. Both cannot be, as they clash. If Mr. Silley’s rights are legal, we have